HomeMy WebLinkAbout66- Applicant's Exhibit 2022-05-04 Noise Landau_Pomona Woods - Technical Review Memorandum_FinalTechnical Memorandum
155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 • Seattle, WA 98125 • 206.631.8680
TO: Courtney Kaylor, McCullough Hill Leary PS
Ann Burkhardt, Pomona Woods LLC
FROM: Kevin Warner
DATE: May 4, 2022
RE: Review of Pomona Woods Acoustical Review by Greenbusch Group Inc.
Pomona Woods
Port Hadlock, Washington
Project No. 2082001.010
Introduction
The following memorandum has been prepared by Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) at the request of
Pomona Woods LLC (Pomona Woods). This memorandum summarizes our assessment of a noise
memorandum prepared by Greenbusch Group Inc. (Greenbusch) of the proposed Pomona Woods
development. The Greenbusch memorandum was prepared for Bricklin and Newman, in support of
the appellant regarding Jefferson County’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for Pomona Woods.
Summary
Landau finds that the Greenbusch memorandum fails to accurately evaluate the potential for noise
increase or noise impact from the operation of the Pomona Woods development. Further it presents
misleading and incorrect assessments of noise. Specifically, Greenbusch’s assessment used a local
1973 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region X guidance document to conclude on the
potential for noise impacts, for which subsequent guidance documents and impact criteria by federal
agencies provide more defensible criteria. Furthermore, the assessment employed the EPA Region X
guidance incorrectly. More appropriate impact criteria can be found in the 2018 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA manual) that
evaluates impact based on long-term changes in ambient noise, using a 24-hour day-night sound level
(Ldn) to characterize sound levels over a full day. Using the more recent and more appropriate impact
criteria clearly demonstrates that the proposed facility will result in negligible increases to the
ambient noise environment and will not result in significant noise impacts.
Findings
Regulatory Criteria
Greenbusch states that “sound emissions from the site are regulated by the Jefferson County Code
(JCC) and the State of Washington Administrative Code (WAC).” The memorandum identifies the
definition of a public nuisance per JCC Chapter 8.70.040 and summarizes sounds that constitute a
Exhibit 66
Exhibit 66 Page 0841
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 2 May 4, 2022
public nuisance, as defined within JCC Chapter 8.70.050, as well as sounds that are exempt from being
classified a nuisance, as defined within JCC Chapter 8.70.060.
Landau notes that the Greenbusch memorandum does include reference to JCC Chapter 8.70.060(19)
that states “sounds exempted under Chapter 173-60 WAC, as that chapter now exists or as it may
hereafter be amended” do not constitute a violation of JCC Chapter 8.70. Specifically, WAC 173-60
exempts the following, which are not included in the Greenbusch memorandum:
• WAC 173-60-050(1)(e): Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services
(exempt between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.)
• WAC 173-60-050(4)(k): Sounds caused by natural phenomena and unamplified human voices
(exempt at all times).
Potential Noise Effect Criteria
On page 8 of the memorandum, Greenbusch states that “To assess potential noise effects from
increasing ambient conditions in the community, this analysis relies on guidelines presented in the
document titled Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (EPA Region X, 1973).” The
memorandum further summarizes degrees of noise impact relative to the number of complaints that
may be received due to increases over ambient noise conditions.
Greenbusch states that the 1973 EPA guidelines “are not standards and do not have the force of law
but do serve as useful indicators for potential noise effects pursuant to SEPA.” Landau agrees that the
1973 EPA guidance is not standard and does not have the force of law. However, Landau disagrees
that the 1973 EPA guidance is useful, and further concludes that these guidelines are irrelevant in the
assessment of the potential for noise impact from the Pomona Woods development. Landau
considered the following in reaching this conclusion:
1) The degrees of community response based on sound level increases are found in Section III of
the 1973 EPA guidance, General Guidelines, Subpart C(2)(c) (Noise, Recommended Criteria,
Permissible Increase). In this same subpart, the guideline references EPA-NTID 300.3
Community Noise regarding degrees of annoyance from intrusive sounds. EPA-NTID 300.3
assesses the potential for noise impact due to increases in community noise based on a
24-hour Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is an average of 24 hours of
hourly sound levels with a 5-decibel (dB) penalty added to levels measured between 7 p.m.
and 10 p.m., and a 10-dB penalty added to levels measured between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The
Greenbusch study, however, compared “the highest” predicted construction and operational
noises to the median ambient L25 noise level (25th percentile noise level) measured during
both daytime and nighttime hours. This approach is inconsistent with the intent of the 1973
EPA guidance.
2) Landau staff engaged in conversations in the mid-1990s with then King County Environmental
Health Services Supervisor Curt Horner who was involved in the development of the same
1973 EPA guidance document. During this discussion, Mr. Horner noted that the 1973 EPA
guidance was developed primarily to evaluate noise increases in urban and suburban
Exhibit 66 Page 0842
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 3 May 4, 2022
communities, not in rural environments. Further, that applying such criteria in a rural
environment would lead to impacts from almost any new development or activities due to the
low levels of ambient noise in rural communities.
Landau staff’s conversation with Mr. Horner is support by Chapter 5.1 of EPA-NTID 300.3, the
document referenced in the 1973 EPA Region X guidance, that states:
“Both types of noise pollution, the constant high level noise intrusion of the downtown
city, and the intermittent single event noise intrusions in the suburban and urban
residential areas, interfere with speech and other human activities. The downtown city
type of noise environment has been recognized for centuries as undesirable for
residential living. The single event type of noise intrusion has been experienced along
railroad tracks for the last century and may be one of the reasons why land near
railroads is not generally considered desirable for residential construction.
However, in the last 20 years, there has been a very large growth in both types of
pollution due to the introduction of new types of noise sources into suburban and
urban residential communities. These sources, such as jet aircraft, urban freeways,
new industrial plants, and homeowner equipment, have created numerous community
noise pollution problems. These problems have provided significant data and insight
relating to community reaction and annoyance, and stimulated the development of
several indices for measurement of the magnitude of intruding noises.”
As summarized above, the reference document used to support the findings of the 1973 EPA
Region X guidance considers noise in urban and suburban environments. Therefore, any
criteria based on this reference are unlikely to be of use for evaluating impacts in quiet rural
areas, such as in the vicinity of Pomona Woods.
3) The 2018 FTA manual is an updated guidance document to evaluate community response to
noise. Similar to the 1973 EPA guidance, the FTA manual is based on noise impacts due to
increases over ambient levels and was developed primarily for assessment of noise in urban
and suburban environments. Existing ambient sound levels are measured over a 24-hour
period and reported as the Ldn (note that the Ldn is similar to the CNEL but applies a penalty
only to sound levels measured between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). As summarized in Table 4-5 of
the FTA manual, lower ambient sound levels require a greater degree of increase in noise
before an impact occurs.
The method of assessment of noise impacts in the FTA manual is based on a 1978 publication
by T.J. Schultz. The Schultz publication established a correlation between annoyance and
exposure to increases in the day-night sound level (Ldn) from long-term sounds. The “Schultz
curve,” described in the FTA manual as having “received essentially unanimous acceptance by
acoustical scientists and engineers,” is used by the FTA as the basis for assessment of impact
from increases over ambient levels from long-term sources.
As noted above, the 1973 EPA guidance is intended to evaluate urban and suburban noise increases
and is not intended for rural environments, but it is applied here to provide a conservative means for
assessment of impact. Landau finds that the FTA impact criteria provides a much wider range of
ambient conditions that allows for a more accurate assessment of impacts for quieter rural
conditions.
Exhibit 66 Page 0843
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 4 May 4, 2022
Furthermore, the FTA impact criteria, and similarly the 1973 EPA Region X guidance, are intended to
apply to long-term increases in noise (i.e., long-term and continued operation of facilities) and are not
intended to apply to temporary or short-term noises, such as construction, or intermittent activities
like generator testing or garbage collection.
Analysis
The Greenbusch memorandum summarizes results of predictive noise modeling using the Datakustik
CadnaA noise model. Included in this model were various sources of construction and operational
noise. Table 6 of the Greenbusch memorandum summarizes results of the modeled activities and
equipment; Table 7 summarizes noise modeling sound levels. Landau finds the following issues with
the Greenbusch noise model and results:
• Overall: The Greenbusch memorandum does not illustrate where sound sources were placed
within the model itself, and it is not possible to verify whether locations of modeled sound
sources are reasonable relative to the neighboring property lines.
The footnote in Table 8 states that predicted sound levels are the “highest predicted sound
level” and compares these values with median existing L25 sound levels to determine increase
due to the project. This comparison is misleading and incorrect.
• Construction: The Greenbusch memorandum states on page 8 that “as shown in Table 8
predicted sound levels during construction are anticipated to be up to 24 dB louder than
existing daytime sound levels.” Landau notes that noise from temporary construction is
exempt from JCC between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., as identified in the Greenbusch
memorandum on page 5. Further, noise from construction would fluctuate over the course of
the construction program.
The Greenbusch memorandum, in Table 6, identifies modeled construction equipment to
include a “dump truck, excavator, air compressor.” Table 8 in the memorandum presents “the
highest predicted sound level at receiving property lines” for all construction equipment as
63 A-weighted decibels (dBA). It is not clear if this is the sound level at the nearest property
line to the measurement location or elsewhere.
• Generator: In Table 6 of the Greenbusch memorandum, the generator was modeled “at south
side of Retreat Building.” The memorandum does not provide an explanation for placing the
generator at this location, and Landau understands that Pomona Woods has not yet identified
a location for the generator. Furthermore, Pomona Woods can locate the generator far from
nearby noise-sensitive property lines.
Routine testing of the generator, typically a 30-minute or less test that occurs once per
month, is not exempt from JCC but is exempt during use in an emergency power situation.
Landau notes that the Greenbusch memorandum does not provide detail to this effect. The
Greenbusch memorandum, on page 10, states that “generator and mechanical equipment
sound levels were adjusted to comply with daytime and nighttime WAC sound limits”.
Greenbusch provides no further explanation to what “adjusted” implies. Further, the
generator would be tested during daytime hours only; nighttime operation of the generator
Exhibit 66 Page 0844
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 5 May 4, 2022
would only occur under an emergency situation, and noise produced under these
circumstances would be exempt from noise limits.
In Table 7, the memorandum uses a reference sound level of 70 dBA at 50 feet for the
generator. Landau has reviewed the most recent sound source library for the Roadway
Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 2.0 and finds that the actual measured sound level
(i.e., not from a specification) for a typical “construction” generator is 67 dBA at 50 feet.1
Lastly, as indicated earlier, an intermittent activity, such as once-per-month generator testing
for 30 minutes, should not have been included in an assessment of long-term and continued
increases in noise over ambient conditions.
• Mechanical: The Greenbusch memorandum identifies in Table 6 “rooftop equipment” but
does not specify what this refers to, stating that it is “one unit on roof of Retreat Building.”
Assuming “rooftop equipment” implies air-handling equipment (e.g., a heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning [HVAC] unit), the sound level identified in Table 7, 89 dBA at a distance of
3 feet, is much higher than Landau would anticipate for a commercial air-handling unit for a
facility the size of the proposed Pomona Woods building. Typical sound levels from air-
handling units for commercial facilities can be up to approximately 73 dBA at 3 feet, much
quieter than what was modeled by Greenbusch.
Further, the Greenbusch memorandum does not specify where on the roof of the retreat
building the “mechanical equipment” was placed. If placed near the south end of the roof,
sound levels from the mechanical equipment, as received at the southern property line, would
be higher than if the mechanical equipment was placed near the center or near the north end
of the roof (i.e., the sound level would be lower due to increased distance from the property
line). Further, a unit placed farther north on the building’s roof would benefit from the
shielding effect of the roof itself breaking line of sight to the property line.
Pomona Woods has not yet selected a rooftop HVAC unit and, therefore, can select
equipment that does not generate high sound levels and is located far from the property line,
potentially shielded by the building’s roof. Further, given that Pomona Woods is being
developed to provide guests a tranquil wooded environment for relaxation, the HVAC unit is
likely to be selected and positioned so as not to impact the facility’s intended use.
• Garbage Truck: Table 6 of the Greenbusch memorandum states that a garbage truck was
modeled as “one round-trip by garbage truck traveling at 15 miles per hour” and, in Table 8,
presents “the highest predicted sound level at receiving property lines” as 53 dBA. It is not
clear if this predicted sound level is at the nearest property line to the measurement location
or elsewhere. Regardless, as indicated earlier, an intermittent activity, such as garbage
collection, that occurs for several minutes once per week (or less), should not have been
included in an assessment of long-term and continued increases in noise over ambient
conditions.
Additionally, Landau understands that waste generated at Pomona Woods may be self-hauled
or transported to Oak Bay Road for pick-up, as currently occurs with neighboring garbage pick-
up. That is, garbage trucks are not expected to travel onsite.
1 https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3889.
Exhibit 66 Page 0845
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 6 May 4, 2022
Landau Assessment of Noise Impact
As part of this review, and for comparison to the impact assessment results provided by Greenbusch,
Landau completed its own predictive modeling and assessment of noise from the Pomona Woods
development. The assessment was based impact criteria in the 2018 FTA manual that evaluates the
potential for noise impact relative to existing ambient noise levels. Landau used the same noise model
as Greenbusch, the Datakustik CadnaA noise prediction model, which uses International Standards
Organization (ISO) document 9613-2 noise propagation algorithms. Sound levels were predicted at the
nearest property line location to where Greenbusch conducted ambient noise measurements,
assumed to be the same “property line” location modeled for the Greenbusch report. Noise levels
further east along the southern property line would likely be lower than are predicted in this
summary.
For this assessment, Landau used the ambient L25 noise data summarized in Table 9 of the
Greenbusch memorandum to calculate a 24-hour existing ambient Ldn sound level, assuming that the
L25 is similar to an hour equivalent sound level (Leq).
Note that the Landau assessment is of operational activities only (i.e., not construction) because, as
indicated, construction activity is temporary and exempt from JCC and is not typically considered in
these types of impact assessments
Landau Modeled Operational Activity Schedule
Following are the operational noise sources included in Landau’s assessment:
• Mechanic Equipment: An HVAC unit with a sound pressure level of 73 dBA at a distance of
3 feet was placed at the approximate center of the proposed Pomona Woods building roof.
• Vehicle Traffic: As a conservative assumption, 48 average daily trips were divided over 3 hours
(i.e., 16 cars per hour) during the morning period and again over 3 hours during the evening
period.
• Generator: A generator was assumed to operate on the north side of the Pomona Woods
building. The modeled sound level was 67 dBA at 50 feet, consistent with sound level for a
generator as provided in RCNM 2.0. A generator is assumed to operate for 30 minutes during
routine testing. Note that this type of intermittent noise (once per month for 30 minutes) is
not typically included in an assessment of long-term increase in noise but was included here
for comparison with the Greenbusch memorandum and for an added level of
conservativeness.
• Garbage Truck: Assumed to operate during one daytime hour traveling onsite at 15 miles per
hour. Note that this type of intermittent noise (once per week or less for a few minutes each
time) is not typically included in an assessment of long-term increase in noise but was
included here for comparison with the Greenbusch memorandum and for an added level of
conservativeness. As previously stated, Landau understands that garbage trucks are not
Exhibit 66 Page 0846
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 7 May 4, 2022
anticipated to drive onsite, and so including the garbage truck in our assessment adds an
additional element of conservativeness.
• Outdoor Use: Assumed 35 people split between the “lawn” on the west side of the building
and the “porch” on the east side of the building. Landau assumed that all 35 people would be
talking, each at 60 dBA at 3 feet as provided in the Greenbusch memorandum, between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (a highly conservative assumption).
Over a 24-hour period, the following scenarios were assumed for the Landau modeling assessment:
• For 1 daytime hour (i.e., 1 hour between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.), operational noise includes a
garbage truck, traffic, outdoor use (voices), and mechanical equipment (i.e., rooftop HVAC
unit).
• For 5 daytime hours, operational noise includes traffic, outdoor use (voices), and mechanical
equipment (i.e., rooftop HVAC unit).
• For 1 daytime hour, operational noise includes a generator, outdoor use (voices), and
mechanical equipment (i.e., rooftop HVAC unit).
• For 8 daytime hours, operational noise includes outdoor use (voices) and mechanical
equipment (i.e., rooftop HVAC unit).
• For all nighttime hours, operational noise includes mechanical equipment (i.e., rooftop HVAC
unit).
Ambient Noise Level
Using the Greenbusch measurement L25 sound level data, Landau computed Ldn values over two
24-hour periods including between 12 p.m. April 15 and 12 p.m. April 16, and between 12 a.m.
April 19 and 12 a.m. April 20. The calculation of Ldn values assumes that the L25 is approximately
similar to the hourly Leq. For sound levels measured during nighttime hours (i.e., between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m.), a 10-dB penalty is added to measured sound levels. The resulting existing ambient Ldn values
were 40 dBA and 41 dBA, respectively, for April 15–16 and April 19.
Predicted Operational Noise Levels
Landau predicted the following hourly operational noise levels at the south property line:
• Mechanical Equipment (HVAC at center of building roof): 30 dBA
• Traffic (16 cars in 1 hour): 14 dBA
• Generator (operates for 30 minutes, once per month, located on north side of building):
21 dBA
• Garbage Truck (one truck at 15 miles per hour, once per week for several minutes, occurring
during 1 daytime hour): 27 dBA
• Outdoor Use (35 people, each at 60 dBA at 3 feet, split between “lawn” and “porch”):
24 dBA.
Exhibit 66 Page 0847
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 8 May 4, 2022
The above estimated hourly sound levels for operational equipment, including of very intermittent
activities (i.e., garbage collection and generator testing) that typically would not be evaluated for this
type of assessment, were added to measured L25 levels reported by Greenbusch for the two 24-hour
measurement periods identified above, as per the operational activity schedule also identified above.
The summed hourly sound levels were then used to compute the 24-hour Ldn. Results are presented in
Table 1 below.
Table 1. Pomona Woods Landau Noise Assessment Results
Ambient Measurement
Period
Calculated
Ambient Ldn1
Predicted Ambient
+ Operational Ldn2 Increase FTA Impact at Category 2
Land Use 3
April 14–April 15
12 p.m.–12 p.m. 40 dBA 41 dBA 1 dBA No Impact
April 19
12 a.m.–12 a.m. 41 dBA 42 dBA 2 dBA No Impact
1 Computed based on Greenbusch sound level measurement data
2 Includes the addition of a HVAC unit, generator testing, garbage truck, traffic, and 35 people talking outside during all
daytime hours
3 Land Use Category 3 is defined in the FTA manual Table 4-3 as “applicable to all residential land use and buildings where
people normally sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.” Impact criteria for ambient noise levels less than 43 dBA for Category 2
Land Uses are: No Impact, <10 dBA over ambient; Moderate Impact, 10-15 dBA over ambient; Severe Impact, >15 dBA over
ambient.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
Ldn = day-night sound level
As summarized in Table 1, predicted increases in the 24-hour Ldn are 1 to 2 dBA. At an ambient level of
less than 43 dBA, Table 4-5 of the 2018 FTA manual identifies “No Impact” for increases of up to 10
dBA. Predicted increase due to operation of Pomona Woods would be up to 2 dBA over ambient, well
below the FTA impact criteria.
As noted, the FTA manual (as with the 1973 EPA guidance) is not intended for predictions of noise
impact in rural areas, nor is it suitable for assessment of intermittent short-duration noise events,
such as routine generator testing and garbage collection. Therefore, applying this impact criteria for
both long-term and intermittent noise sources at Pomona Woods can be considered conservative.
Use of This Technical Memorandum
This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of McCullough Hill Leary and
Pomona Woods for specific application to the proposed Pomona Woods development. No other party
is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document
without the express written consent of Landau. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and
recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without
Exhibit 66 Page 0848
Landau Associates
Noise Study Review
Pomona Woods 9 May 4, 2022
review and authorization by Landau, shall be at the user’s sole risk. Landau warrants that within the
limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner consistent
with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing
in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make no other warranty, either
express or implied.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kevin Warner
Principal
KMW/KLW/ljl
[P:\2082\001\R\LANDAU_POMONA WOODS - TECHNICAL REVIEW MEMORANDUM_FINAL 050422.DOCX]
Exhibit 66 Page 0849